What Are Rights Anyway?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Changing topic slightly, I often notice "I have the right to do this" misused to mean "this is something I am empowered to do" as a kind of bait-and-switch tactic.

For example, I remember seeing a TV debate some years ago, about abuse of power by the police. A man who had been wrongly arrested for robbery was complaining that the police had held him for 24 hours before releasing him without charge (or indeed any further action) despite the fact that he had a beard, and all the witnesses had said that the robber was clean shaven. A senior police officer (who was also present on the show) replied in a patronizing tone: "The reason you were held for 24 hours was that the police had the right to hold you for that length of time".

No they didn't.

A child has a right to the stable home and an education. A criminal suspect has the right to a fair trial and legal representation. A person has the right to paint his/her kitchen whatever colour he/she wishes, or to walk the streets without molestation from criminals.

The police did not have the right to hold this man (or indeed any other man or woman) for 24 hours.

What they had was the power to hold him. That power was granted to them by the state, on the understanding that it would be used in an appropriate manner.

This man's complaint was that it had not been used in an appropriate manner.

There were many valid replies this officer could have given: he could have said: "I'm not familiar with this case, but perhaps there were more factors involved." "Perhaps there might have been a suggestion that there was ore than one perpetrator." "Maybe the witnesses had only a fleeting glance, and could have been mistaken." The list goes on...

But instead this senior officer - who ought to (and indeed probably did) know better - chose to stand on his "rights", explaining nothing while insulting everyone else's intelligence.

It makes me SO cross, that in the words of Mr. Angry I'm going to "throw the phone down!" ;)

IMO, this is the problem with over-use and erroneous use of the word "right", and it accompanies the failure of teachers and parents to educate their children on what exactly rights are, and how much we should appreciate, preserve, and not abuse them.

Anymore, people seem to believe in a right to a particular outcome rather than a right to be free from government abuse or to be free to act on one's own behalf.

The simple fact is, you don't have a right to paint your kitchen whatever color you wish - instead, you have a right to own and control property, a right of free movement within the society to which you belong, and a right to engage in commerce.  You can then express those rights in ways which result in you painting your own kitchen.  But there is no "right to paint your kitchen whatever color you wish" - because if there were, you could then claim certain unjust behaviors (such as theft) to be an exercise of your right to paint your kitchen.

Perhaps "precision" should be a civics or language class. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

But there is no "right to paint your kitchen whatever color you wish" - because if there were, you could then claim certain unjust behaviors (such as theft) to be an exercise of your right to paint your kitchen.

I would say your right to paint your kitchen any colour is a corollary of the more general rights you mention. I'm not sure how you could justify theft on that basis - unless you're suggesting I use it as a justification for stealing paint (which is not a necessary prerequisite for painting).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I would say your right to paint your kitchen any colour is a corollary of the more general rights you mention. I'm not sure how you could justify theft on that basis - unless you're suggesting I use it as a justification for stealing paint (which is not a necessary prerequisite for painting).  

It seems to me that inherent in the idea of "right" is that the things necessary to exercise it are just.  If somewhere or other it were defined that all citizens have the right to "paint their kitchen any color they want" - then what if they don't have a kitchen?  What if they don't have paint?  What if they can't afford to buy these things themselves?  The right, as expressed, implies they have a right to a kitchen and to paint.  Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it.  Perhaps the right is "if you own and kitchen and you own some paint, you have the right to paint your kitchen with said paint".  But absent the precision, a person might argue they have a "right" to a kitchen and to paint, so nothing more should be needed, they should just be able to take them where they find them.  And that's part of the problem - our over-use and erroneous use of "right" has led to people (as far as I can tell) thinking like that - that someone should give them the kitchen and the paint so they can exercise their right to paint their kitchen.

Of course, one could argue the same about the way our 2nd amendment is phrased.  Now I'm going to have to go read all of them and see if any others talk about material objects.  Well, nothing else in the Bill of Rights necessarily involves ownership of an object.  Still, I wonder how long before someone tries to argue that the government should give them a gun so they can exercise their right to keep and bear it. :lol:  I'm sure, when they wrote that amendment, it was beyond common sense that one obtain their own arms, but in this day and age, without explicit text in that regard (and a volume of fine print), someone's gonna go to extreme efforts to distort it into "Gimme my gun.  I gotta right to a gun."  Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, zil said:

Perhaps "precision" should be a civics or language class. :)

Actually I agree with you there. I remember when I was about 11, putting my name down for a school canoeing trip. Seeing me do so, one of my classmates (I'll call him JK) asked me "How far can you swim?" I told him - quite truthfully "I don't know."

Thanks to JK, a rumour spread across the school that I had admitted to not being able to swim. From then, up to the time of the trip, I was constantly asked "Why are you going canoeing if you can't swim", and when I replied that I could swim, I was asked "Why did you tell JK that you couldn't?"

Nobody could see the difference between not knowing how far you could swim, and not being able to swim. I daresay if my life depended on it I could have swam quite a long way, but how far? I didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zil said:

It seems to me that inherent in the idea of "right" is that the things necessary to exercise it are just.  If somewhere or other it were defined that all citizens have the right to "paint their kitchen any color they want" - then what if they don't have a kitchen?  What if they don't have paint?  What if they can't afford to buy these things themselves?  The right, as expressed, implies they have a right to a kitchen and to paint.  Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it.  Perhaps the right is "if you own and kitchen and you own some paint, you have the right to paint your kitchen with said paint".  But absent the precision, a person might argue they have a "right" to a kitchen and to paint, so nothing more should be needed, they should just be able to take them where they find them.  And that's part of the problem - our over-use and erroneous use of "right" has led to people (as far as I can tell) thinking like that - that someone should give them the kitchen and the paint so they can exercise their right to paint their kitchen.

Of course, one could argue the same about the way our 2nd amendment is phrased.  Now I'm going to have to go read all of them and see if any others talk about material objects.  Well, nothing else in the Bill of Rights necessarily involves ownership of an object.  Still, I wonder how long before someone tries to argue that the government should give them a gun so they can exercise their right to keep and bear it. :lol:  I'm sure, when they wrote that amendment, it was beyond common sense that one obtain their own arms, but in this day and age, without explicit text in that regard (and a volume of fine print), someone's gonna go to extreme efforts to distort it into "Gimme my gun.  I gotta right to a gun."  Sigh.

OK I think I get what you're saying.

I can think of two other examples:

  • "In the UK you need a license to watch TV." No you don't. You need a license to operate a TV in your home. If you go to a friend's house and the TV happens to be on, you don't have to shut your eyes and block your ears up if you don't have a TV license. Neither do you have to avert your eyes every time you pass a TV store on the high street.
  • "In the US it is illegal to have alcohol in a motor vehicle." No it isn't. It is illegal to have open containers of alcohol in a motor vehicle. Otherwise every delivery driver who works for a brewery or distillery would be liable to arrest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A buddy sends the following report from Israel, regarding some of the information Israel puts on your national ID card:

Quote
It states:
1.  Your religion
2.  Your place of birth
3.  Your parents' names and religion and (if memory serves) where they were born as well
4.  If you are a woman, it will indicate whether a group of 3 or more rabbis has ever tagged you as an "incorrigible."  This is not a good thing, if it happens to you.  It is a strictly religious designation which the government puts on your national ID card.  Nice, eh?

Hooray for the 2-party system, even if the left-leaning one is led by a [he goes off on a tangent here].

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2018 at 8:12 PM, Carborendum said:

It is important for people to have ownership of things to take care of them.  So, God gave us this notion.  But not in the way you're immediately thinking of.  I'm not talking about the "greed" aspect of it.  That's just man's poor interpretation of it.

Some people take care of the things they own. Others don't. Some people take care of the things they are allowed to borrow--others don't. Some people take care of the things they perceive to be sharing with millions of people--many others abuse those same things. It seems reasonable to conclude that "ownership" is not the common perception that determines the degree to which people take care of things. So, I don't see how to conclude that God gave us the notion of ownership.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike said:

Some people take care of the things they own. Others don't. Some people take care of the things they are allowed to borrow--others don't. Some people take care of the things they perceive to be sharing with millions of people--many others abuse those same things. It seems reasonable to conclude that "ownership" is not the common perception that determines the degree to which people take care of things. So, I don't see how to conclude that God gave us the notion of ownership.

How about we call it "responsibility" instead of "ownership"?  Of course, by your argument, the existence of irresponsible people would indicate that God didn't give us the concept of "responsibility" either.  The existence of "sin" would indicate God didn't give us "righteousness" or "obedience".  Mortal failures are not a good tool by which to measure the existence of virtue.

Without a clearly defined responsibility, there is no order.  God's house is a house of order.  We extend callings, give stewardship, make assignments, and return and report so that all things may be done "in wisdom and in order".  Without the assignment, everyone might volunteer for A while B goes unnoticed.  With assignment, both can be done in an orderly fashion.

By giving a person "ownership" (aka "stewardship", aka "responsibility", aka "an assignment"), we have someone who is free to improve upon that "thing", free to fail (and have it taken away), and responsible to return and report (can you say "day of judgement"?).

Without doing above in an orderly manner, person 1 could be trying to accomplish X with the "thing" while person 2 is trying to accomplish Y with that same "thing" and they are defeating each other, inhibiting improvement.  God doesn't operate this way.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  It exists all over the Church in ways that seem obvious to me, including expanding the principle into every aspect of our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zil said:

How about we call it "responsibility" instead of "ownership"?  Of course, by your argument, the existence of irresponsible people would indicate that God didn't give us the concept of "responsibility" either.  The existence of "sin" would indicate God didn't give us "righteousness" or "obedience".  Mortal failures are not a good tool by which to measure the existence of virtue.

Without a clearly defined responsibility, there is no order.  God's house is a house of order.  We extend callings, give stewardship, make assignments, and return and report so that all things may be done "in wisdom and in order".  Without the assignment, everyone might volunteer for A while B goes unnoticed.  With assignment, both can be done in an orderly fashion.

By giving a person "ownership" (aka "stewardship", aka "responsibility", aka "an assignment"), we have someone who is free to improve upon that "thing", free to fail (and have it taken away), and responsible to return and report (can you say "day of judgement"?).

Without doing above in an orderly manner, person 1 could be trying to accomplish X with the "thing" while person 2 is trying to accomplish Y with that same "thing" and they are defeating each other, inhibiting improvement.  God doesn't operate this way.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  It exists all over the Church in ways that seem obvious to me, including expanding the principle into every aspect of our lives.

No, I don't think that my argument indicates what you say it indicates.  I think I just see some things differently than you do--and I've only been talking about one specific thing, not all those other concepts you seem to insist as being inextricably tied to the concept described in terms of a natural right. Throughout I've been talking only about property ownership as a natural right. The very first statement in this thread illustrates: "In the discussion of government and laws, it appears that our friends across borders and seas do not look at rights the same way as the American Founding Fathers would."  That's true. Not everybody in the world looks at rights the same way--for that matter, I doubt even all the Founders looked at rights in precisely the same way. This doesn't mean I doubt the divine origin of everything else you care to name--although i might doubt some of them. I'm pretty sure both of us and others "all over the Church" can be faithful and manage our life aspects while disagreeing with one particular political notion--which is what I think property ownership is in the context of the OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share